Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25713765›Full record

ArticleSpringerPlus2015

Prostate cancer screening in Primary Health Care: the current state of affairs.

Weranja Kb Ranasinghe, Simon P Kim, Nathan P Papa, Shomik Sengupta, Mark Frydenberg, Damien Bolton, Dimity Pond, Karin Ried, Melanie J Marshall, Raj Persad and 1 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SpringerPlus, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.

Weranja Kb RanasingheDepartment of Urology, Monash Medical Centre, 823-865 Centre Road, Bentleigh, Victoria 3165 Australia.
Simon P KimYale University; Department of Urology; Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, New Haven, Connecticut USA ; University Hospital Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Urology Institute, Cleveland, Ohio USA.
Nathan P PapaDepartment of Surgery, Austin Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Shomik SenguptaDepartment of Surgery, Austin Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Mark FrydenbergDepartment of Urology, Monash Medical Centre, 823-865 Centre Road, Bentleigh, Victoria 3165 Australia ; Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Damien BoltonDepartment of Surgery, Austin Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Dimity PondUniversity of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.
Karin RiedNational Institute of Integrative Medicine, Melbourne, Australia.
Melanie J MarshallUniversity of New South Wales, NSW (on behalf of PHReNet-GP, a Practice Based Research Network, University of New South Wales), Paddington, Australia.
Raj PersadUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
Nathan LawrentschukUniversity of Melbourne, Dept of Surgery, Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Austin Hospital and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Dept of Surgical Oncology, Melbourne, Australia.
Monash Medical Centre · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AUAustin Hospital · AUNational Institute of Integrative Medicine · AUPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AUUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AUUNSW Sydney · AUYale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aims to examine the current practice of General practitioners (GPs)/primary care physicians in opportunistic screening for prostate cancer (PC) by digital rectal examination(DRE) and Prostate Specific Antigen(PSA) testing and identify any difference in screening practice. Printed copies and/or electronic versions of a survey was distributed amongst 438 GPs throughout Australia in 2012. Statistical analyses (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Fisher's exact test or Pearson chi-square test)were performed by outcomes and GP characteristics.There were a total of 149 responses received (34%), with similar gender distribution in rural and metropolitan settings. 74% GPs believed PSA testing was at least 'somewhat effective' in reducing PC mortality with annual PSA screening being conducted by more GPs in the metropolitan setting compared to the rural GPs (35% vs 18.4%), while 25% of rural GPs would not advocate routine PSA screening. When examining the concordance between DRE and PSA testing by gender of GP, the male GPs reported performing PSA testing more frequently than DRE in patients between ages 40 to 69 (p = 0.011). Urology Society guidelines (77.2%) and College of GPs (73.2%) recommendations for PC screening were thought to be at least 'somewhat useful'. Although reference ranges for PSA tests were felt to be useful, the majority (65.8%) found it easier to refer to an urologist due to the disagreements in guidelines. In conclusion, the current guidelines for PSA screening appear to cause more confusion due to their conflicting advice, leaving GPs to formulate their own practice methods, calling for an urgent need for uniform collaborative guidelines.

Identifiers

PMID25713765
PMCPMC4332913
OpenAlexW2134120476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.